Skip to content

remove deprecated ISO8601DateFormat #1457

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Closed
karussell opened this issue Sep 17, 2018 · 5 comments
Closed

remove deprecated ISO8601DateFormat #1457

karussell opened this issue Sep 17, 2018 · 5 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@karussell
Copy link
Member

It looks we can remove the call

bootstrap.getObjectMapper().setDateFormat(new ISO8601DateFormat());

as this is recommended according the linked issue and all tests are still green.

@karussell karussell changed the title deprecated ISO8601DateFormat remove deprecated ISO8601DateFormat Sep 17, 2018
@karussell karussell added this to the 0.12 milestone Sep 17, 2018
@michaz
Copy link
Member

michaz commented Sep 17, 2018

..which shows I am missing client tests for the Leg type, because removing this does something totally different, and putting in StdDateFormat does something a little different.

Good thing is, Janek's client doesn't care and correctly parses whatever it gets, so I'll just put in StdDateFormat for now, since what that does is actually ISO-8601 compliant, just a slightly different interpretation of it.

@michaz michaz closed this as completed in 2de8cfa Sep 17, 2018
@karussell
Copy link
Member Author

Janek's client doesn't care and correctly parses whatever it gets,

But could this break other clients? If yes, we should either postpone or explicitely document it somewhere.

which shows I am missing client tests for the Leg type

Would you mind to add a test so that we can be "less carefull" :) ?

@michaz
Copy link
Member

michaz commented Sep 17, 2018

But could this break other clients? If yes, we should either postpone or explicitely document it somewhere.

In theory yes, but only if the client was expecting more than what we promised, i.e. not only producing ISO-8601, but a very specific way of writing ISO-8601. I think at this point we can still say that would be the client's problem.

(Actually, the previous way was somewhat more exotic than the current way, so I'd say it's unlikely.)

Would you mind to add a test so that we can be "less carefull" :) ?

Er yes, sure.

@karussell
Copy link
Member Author

I think at this point we can still say that would be the client's problem.

Ok.

Would you mind to add a test so that we can be "less carefull" :) ?

Er yes, sure.

Thanks :) !

@michaz
Copy link
Member

michaz commented Sep 17, 2018

(Actually, the previous way was somewhat more exotic than the current way, so I'd say it's unlikely.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants